Views from the Sieve

I understand Mark, but I'm making the point that if we are criticising him, we need to ask if it's any different to what the Easts are doing.

Remember that the Easts were asking to have 51% of the club for 200k not long ago, but they now offer 500k. Nobody has suggested they were trying to get the club on the cheap, but if you look at it objectively, they were as they are prepared to pay more than double the sum they originally offered to secure control of the club.

I think to get to 5 bids you might be including some put forward to the Easts to bring everyone under one bid.

The Easts need to explain what they plan to do if they get control. Ideally, both sides should put together business plans and publish them. Then we can all consider them.

Agreed Alan.

Great interview Mike, as others have said thank you for putting the time and effort in.

I'm TamplIN now. We've been saying for years how the club needs to be modernised, and an 1100 attendance today (at a time when West Ham were away from home and only 4 premiership 3pm games) shows why we are struggling financially.
He's reduced the controlling stake he wants and he's got others involved such as Glyn Hopkin who have had links with the club over the years.

However, it isn't for us to decide, it's up to the members who are more clued up on it all than us, and who all have the club close to heart.

Let's keep supporting the team and what will be will be.

Great interview, as others said should have been done from the start, however as per a few others now, I am all for Tamplin coming in. His intentions are now in black and white (great interview Mike) and if it all comes through the future could look very good.

The player question had been answered elsewhere gas it not? He mentions three players... One must surely be Ling and he had indicated putting up the money already for both Benson and Whiteley

Auntie Merge wrote:I seem to be getting a lot of criticism.
No I am not going to change my view or be swayed on one article.
If anything it makes me question more.

He says he has already put in £200,000 so we can buy more players.
This indicates we are already living above our means.
How was this money paid, if it's a lump sum then ok but if it's in the form of a loan, with monthly payments, then we are already up shit creek without a paddle if he decides not to make a payment, or pulls out if his takeover bid falls through. Maybe this is part of the plan, to force us into admin so he can pick the club up on the cheap.

IMO It is extremely irresponsible for the board of the club to allow someone to do this before the takeover has happened. It violates the trust the members have put in the board.

'if it's a lump sum then ok but if it's in the form of a loan, with monthly payments, then we are already up shit creek without a paddle if he decides not to make a payment, or pulls out if his takeover bid falls through. Maybe this is part of the plan, to force us into admin so he can pick the club up on the cheap.'

Nothing like sticking to the facts, eh?

He's also funding Terry Harris.

He only wants to buy the club to use it to launder his dirty money.

Must say I'm a little surprised that a number of contributors have been completely swayed by this interview

Mr T comes across as a reasonable bloke but then people who turn out to be rogues often give that impression at first

Virtually all businessmen with a dodgy financial history blame others but we aren't talking about a single bankrupt company here, it's happened multiple times

It would be interesting to hear from some of the creditors of some of the failed companies for their impression of Mr T

I don't have a vote but if I did I would remain extremely sceptical

As discussed in an earlier post an interview with John Still by a sports journo as part of a wider investigation might be illuminating

Even some of the national football writers might be interested in poking around as this would have general interest to many football supporters

Voice of reason wrote:Must say I'm a little surprised that a number of contributors have been completely swayed by this interview

Mr T comes across as a reasonable bloke but then people who turn out to be rogues often give that impression at first

Virtually all businessmen with a dodgy financial history blame others but we aren't talking about a single bankrupt company here, it's happened multiple times

It would be interesting to hear from some of the creditors of some of the failed companies for their impression of Mr T

I don't have a vote but if I did I would remain extremely sceptical

As discussed in an earlier post an interview with John Still by a sports journo as part of a wider investigation might be illuminating

Even some of the national football writers might be interested in poking around as this would have general interest to many football supporters

Has anyone been completely swayed by this interview.
There are a lot of people that have said he comes across well. There are a number of people that haven't been completely against him from the outset.

I am probably in that second category Adrian. I wasn't, and am not, totally against the idea.

My ideal preference was for the Club's structure to remain as it was if possible, and I would still prefer that. But if it changes then I think his package is probably the best bet. Thats what I have thought since this started and still think that now.

I think in terms of the interview what most people think is, he was very open, and you can't ask for more than that. People might not agree with all what he says, but he did at least try to tackle what he was asked.

My two concerns would be what he said about going bust in two months and keeping some of the Club's traditions. On the first of those, I think it should be pointed out that Glen himself says part of the reason for that is because we have taken on additional expenses which have been funded to this point by him. So it should be made clear that the wage bill wouldn't have been so high if that wasn't the case. Secondly, while we need to modernise and for some things to change, I hope he understands a lot of what has made the club tick in the past is it's togetherness and tradition and that while modernising some things is good, some things and some people should remain as they are.

It's also interesting that some of the people who say they want change are really anti Tamplin, even though he is offering a fresh approach?? Same as when some people said they wanted change and then lament the fact Dave Andrews, who had been involved for years, then moved aside?? I am not sure some people really know what they want.

Likewise, I hope if the deal goes through those against him will not be wanting it to go wrong just so they can say "I told you so" as that would be a shame for everyone

Staying as we are is an option if the members vote for it, but sadly it seems the board have led us to a position where that would result in a fire sale and at least one relegation.

Change at board level is required but I guess people like me are hoping somebody with business nous and a few quid, but without all the negatives that come with Tamplin might step forward. Trouble is it sounds like things are so bad even the 500k isn't enough even though it values the club at the same amount.

However, any solution that relies on ongoing losses being picked up by individuals is obviously not sustainable so maybe the 500k plus some fresh ideas just might make us self reliant at this level again. As Alan says we need to see some business plans here rather than 2 groups with a bunch of empty words and pipe dreams.

I'd much rather become a sustainable club than be a rich man's vanity project that sees us achieve hollow success. If he turns out to win the vote and make us the former then fair play to him.

Mark wrote:people like me are hoping somebody with business nous and a few quid, but without all the negatives that come with Tamplin might step forward.

A lot has been made of the insolvencies and I asked about them. I thought the answer given was pretty good tbh.

Coming back from those knocks and being worth what he is constitutes "business nous" I would say, no?

What else are you actually objecting to?

Mark, whether you like him or agree with him is one thing, but why would you insinuate that he doesn't have any business nous?? I would say there are a lot of arguments to suggest the opposite??

Mike the Dagger wrote:

Mark wrote:people like me are hoping somebody with business nous and a few quid, but without all the negatives that come with Tamplin might step forward.

A lot has been made of the insolvencies and I asked about them. I thought the answer given was pretty good tbh.

Coming back from those knocks and being worth what he is constitutes "business nous" I would say, no?

What else are you actually objecting to?

The thing with the insolvencies is that a lot has been made about his supposed conduct.
I had a read of a couple of the reports and couldn't find any direct criticism of him.
The stuff about reports to he Secretary of State looked to be a standard statement and only confirmed that a required report was made - not that there was any wrong doing.